τὸ φῦλον ο?κ ὄπωπα τῆσδ᾽ ?μιλίας
ο?δ᾽ ἥτις αἶα τοῦτ᾽ ?πεύχεται γένος
τ?έφους᾽ ἀνατεὶ μὴ μεταστένειν πόνον.
Eumenides 57-59
Would this translation be correct: "I have not seen the the tribe of this company, nor have I perceived what land boasts, rearing this race, not to lament the suffering afterwards."
This translation seems awkward and confusing, but it also seems the most literal to me. I have looked at Lattimore's and Smyth's translations, and they seem to translate the participle " τ?έφους᾽" too loosely. Furthermore, their translations also seem a bit perplexing.
Eumenides Translation
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 722
- Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 4:04 am
- Location: Chicago, IL
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 6:11 am
i think you're basically right. this is a fine example, by the way, of incorporation, which someone here asked about recently.
"i have not seen the race of this association,
nor (have i seen) the land which boasts that,
while rearing this clan with impunity, she does not lament her labor afterwards."
we have indirect discourse, more or less, following epeukhetai; "aia" is the subject both of "epeukhetai" and the infinitive "me metastenein," which explains why "trephousa" is in the nominative. "trephousa" is just a circumstantial participle, on the level of "me metastenein," i think, and not "epeukhetai" (that is to say, the rearing accompanies her lack of complaining, it doesn't necessarily accompany her boasting).
"i have not seen the race of this association,
nor (have i seen) the land which boasts that,
while rearing this clan with impunity, she does not lament her labor afterwards."
we have indirect discourse, more or less, following epeukhetai; "aia" is the subject both of "epeukhetai" and the infinitive "me metastenein," which explains why "trephousa" is in the nominative. "trephousa" is just a circumstantial participle, on the level of "me metastenein," i think, and not "epeukhetai" (that is to say, the rearing accompanies her lack of complaining, it doesn't necessarily accompany her boasting).
-
- Textkit Member
- Posts: 142
- Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 6:24 am
I think part of what makes the translation, especially of the end part, sound awkward, is that English is more comfortable making its points with a series of finite verbs one after the other, where Greek is more likely to subordinate one or more of a series of events with a participle. So the point of the statement would probably fall more naturally into English something like this:
I know of no land which can claim that it raises this species and doesn't regret it afterwards.
(obviously this doesn't respect the syntax of the Greek sentence, but I think it gets the idea across more clearly in English)
I know of no land which can claim that it raises this species and doesn't regret it afterwards.
(obviously this doesn't respect the syntax of the Greek sentence, but I think it gets the idea across more clearly in English)
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 722
- Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 4:04 am
- Location: Chicago, IL
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 722
- Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 4:04 am
- Location: Chicago, IL